Recent Posts

It’s exciting to see how a coordinated
Web blackout this Wednesday got members of Congress to
reverse themselves so quickly—and do the right thing. By the end
of the day, the number of Senators publicly opposing PIPA (the
anti-piracy legislation that threatens free speech) jumped to 35
from five the week before. By the time you read this, those
numbers may have jumped again. I wouldn’t be totally surprised
if, with the tidal wave of public anger, we see 100 senators
scrambling to get on the bandwagon. (Well, probably not
100, but a lot.)

However, it’s important to remember that, no matter how many
citizens expressed themselves on PIPA (or the House version,
SOPA), it was corporations partially driving this—in competition
with other corporations. Basically, it is a battle between
companies that create original content (especially movie and
music makers) and those who derive their living from providing
communications platforms where pretty much anything goes,
including “borrowing” imagery, film clips, songs and more from
their owners and creators for the purposes of a vibrant dialogue.

Putting aside the complicated pros and cons of the issue, in
which both sides have legitimate concerns, and the overriding
conclusion that the legislation could cast a severe pall over
free discourse and Internet innovation, there is another matter
to consider.

Namely this: What would it take for a public movement to get a
similar response from elected officials, when
billion-dollar interests were not lined up on the same side?
Twitter, Reddit, Google, BoingBoing, Tumblr, TGWTG, etc. may be
cool, but they’re giant. or at least popular, for-profit
enterprises with agendas of their own. Wikipedia and Mozilla are
huge, albeit nonprofit, commercial-type enterprises with major
brands to promote and protect. All of these and more were on the
“free speech” side of this battle. And their role, up front and
center, was indispensable in driving home the point, and making
congress- members squeal.

As soon as the blackout went into effect, and these outfits got
their users to begin a massive and immediate campaign of
petitions, emails, and calls, elected officials reversed
themselves faster than you can say “one term.”

But suppose the free-speech forces had to make their case without
a turbocharging from interested parties? How would we get some
other onerous piece of legislation blocked when there was no
strong financial incentive for deep-pocketed corporations with
slick marketing/publicity arms to mobilize?

For example, what about the NDAA (National Defense Authorization
Act), with its onerous and vague provisions that could, under
certain circumstances, potentially allow for the indefinite
detention without charge of American citizens accused of
connections with terrorist groups? Despite a public uproar,
Congress went ahead and passed that bill. (Obama signed it, but
in a “signing statement” said that his administration would not
sanction indefinite detention of citizens – a proviso that offers
no restraint on future administrations.)

The point is this: indefinite detention of citizens, even the
remote threat of it, is surely as important a threat to our
liberties as legislation that curtails our freedom to use
copyrighted material on the Internet. Yet what corporations were
troubled enough to join the ACLU and other liberties groups in
opposing NDAA?

Before we get too self-satisfied over the SOPA/PIPA victory, we
need to take a long, hard look at our increasing alliance with
all manner of corporate entities to advance our own interests. We
should ask ourselves: If we don’t believe that corporations
should be treated as persons, why do we need to work with them as
if they are? And how can we the people join together to attain
political goals without an 800-pound corporate gorilla in our
corner?